L'oreal model whose employment I believe was based on taking part in a campaign to celebrate diversity within the fashion/beauty world and beyond was sacked for posting the below. It has caused a pretty large uproar in the UK and led to innumerable articles as well as television and radio interviews featuring Monroe debating whether the decision was warranted.

Quote below:

‘Honestly I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people.

‘Because most of ya’ll don’t even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism. From micro-aggressions to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this s***.

‘Come see me when you realise that racism isn’t learned, it’s inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege.

‘Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth… then we can talk.

‘Until then stay acting shocked about how the world continues to stay f***** at the hands of your ancestors and your heads that remain buried in the sand with hands over your ears.’

Now this was said in response I believe to the violence in Charlottesville for any of those who might consider that relevant.

For all the things Whites are supposed to be privileged for, that someone can accuse me of racial violence, without me having to do or say anything, is so unenviable to me that I'd rather be black. I don't know if that has anything to do with me being mixed race, but so is Munroe...

Thoughts?

__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Of course she's right. History is a catalogue of white supremacist exploitation and genocide.

Are we guilty because we weren't the ones who pulled the trigger? Yes I think we are, as long as we continue to celebrate racial murder as some kind of glorious achievement. Empire is an ugly thing, not a force for good. I recently read "The Blood Never Dried" by John Newsinger, an honest account of the cold blooded atrocities of the British Empire. It's a brilliant read and I heartily recommend it, but it will have your toes curling for shame of what was done in the name of 'progress' and 'democracy'.

If this imperialism had ended we would have grounds to distance our generation from guilt, but it never ends. Whether it's Shock and Awe, or drone strikes, or economic sanctions, the White Man still plays at ruling the world and doesn't mind how many casualties he inflicts to do it.

Of course she's right. History is a catalogue of white supremacist exploitation and genocide.

Are we guilty because we weren't the ones who pulled the trigger? Yes I think we are, as long as we continue to celebrate racial murder as some kind of glorious achievement. Empire is an ugly thing, not a force for good. I recently read "The Blood Never Dried" by John Newsinger, an honest account of the cold blooded atrocities of the British Empire. It's a brilliant read and I heartily recommend it, but it will have your toes curling for shame of what was done in the name of 'progress' and 'democracy'.

If this imperialism had ended we would have grounds to distance our generation from guilt, but it never ends. Whether it's Shock and Awe, or drone strikes, or economic sanctions, the White Man still plays at ruling the world and doesn't mind how many casualties he inflicts to do it.

Nonsense. Every race on the planet has a history drenched in blood. Should people of Mongol descent be blamed for their forefathers' conquests? Should the children of the Zulu be blamed for the bloodletting of their ancestors? The empire of Xerxes, the Xia dynasty, the Aztecs and Apaches... Every single race has a history of greed and violence, and at different times in history different races held power over different tracts of land.

Aside from those areas where no one has ever lived there probably isn't a scrap of dirt for which someone hasn't died. If we're all to be accountable for the actions of our ancestors then we're all liable. Every one of us.

I think racism is on its way to an overdue grave due to increases in communication that allow people to realise we're all more alike than different. I don't think "white privilege" exists. Only economic privilege, and money is blind to race.

The Following User Says Thank You to eripiomundus For This Useful Post:

Nonsense. Every race on the planet has a history drenched in blood. Should people of Mongol descent be blamed for their forefathers' conquests? Should the children of the Zulu be blamed for the bloodletting of their ancestors? The empire of Xerxes, the Xia dynasty, the Aztecs and Apaches... Every single race has a history of greed and violence, and at different times in history different races held power over different tracts of land.

Aside from those areas where no one has ever lived there probably isn't a scrap of dirt for which someone hasn't died. If we're all to be accountable for the actions of our ancestors then we're all liable. Every one of us.

I think racism is on its way to an overdue grave due to increases in communication that allow people to realise we're all more alike than different. I don't think "white privilege" exists. Only economic privilege, and money is blind to race.

Indeed.

There are a couple problems with Munroe's kind of thinking. And it mainly comes down to what I was taught as a kid ó my mum gave me a little mini bio of Martin Luther King when I was 10. The message is simple, we donít want special treatment or consideration, we only wish that judgment is based only on oneís actions and the content of oneís character.

Once we start from this principle we cannot find someone guilty by association because of their skin colour, which is exactly what this thinking does. I think the test for whether someone is actually principled or not is whether they can be objective in its application even when it is inconvenient.

So I canít be judged based on the actions of others, historical or otherwise.

Second problem, judging people by the actions of their state, empire, and suggesting that one cannot have admiration for the good, because it is somehow inextricable from the bad. Think of ANY internationally successful culture/nation. There is none in history which isnít steeped in racism, violence, atrocity and oppression. Ottoman empire, Imperial China, Islamic conquests, Japanese expansion, Soviet Russia etc etc. By this standard, no one can have pride in Ďtheir peopleí, and must only feel shame, should they wish not to contribute towards racism.

Third problem, the standard for racism. You cannot have a standard which says 'racism is not doing anything about racism' unless it's specifically within your job description. I'm not guilty of theft, or supportive of theft if I don't chase down the thief... I'm guilty of theft if I steal shit, and I won't be called a thief otherwise.

__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

The Following User Says Thank You to JohnConstantine For This Useful Post:

I think racism is on its way to an overdue grave due to increases in communication that allow people to realise we're all more alike than different. I don't think "white privilege" exists. Only economic privilege, and money is blind to race.

I think the more subtle forms of racism will exist as long as people lack the self awareness to acknowledge their own deep-seated prejudices.

And I believe white privilege exists to the degree that white people generally don't have to deal with the consequences of that.

I don't know about where you live -- but in general, caucasians in the U.S. don't have to deal with the day-to-day consequences of racism -- when it comes to hiring, housing, dealing with the police or even trying to hail a cab...

I don't know about where you live -- but in general, caucasians in the U.S. don't have to deal with the day-to-day consequences of racism -- when it comes to hiring, housing, dealing with the police or even trying to hail a cab...

Perhaps not. But you do have to deal with being called the most violent and oppressive force on earth.

It's weird people who study this stuff go right into micro-aggression which might include not getting a cab, or people expecting you to like hip-hop or whatever. They analyse all these tiny interactions as part of a wider structure of discrimination, and then turn around and say things like the above.

If we're going to get into the realms of subtlety, subconscious and unconscious prejudice it seems to me believing whites are oppressors is a big ol' elephant in the room.

Moreover I would say for kids who aren't as able to process this kind of stuff it's destructive on both sides. Say my son is black and he is taught to believe most of the people in his country are violent oppressors, who are privileged and rigged the game to keep him down. How do you trust anyone? How do you work in their employment without feel deep seated resentment and anger? Say my son is white and believes he is responsible for white violence and oppression, how does he not walk around without a burden of unshakable guilt? How does he have pride in himself and his society?

This is why I think people like Morgan Freeman have come out and said 'stop talking about it', suggesting that the obsessive focus on it (and it is obsessive in many circles) contributes to its continuation more than it detracts.

__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

Perhaps not. But you do have to deal with being called the most violent and oppressive force on earth.

But as it is now, white people still have the power to oppress and discriminate -- although the backlash or even an overreaction to that could affect them adversely.

So for now, the consequence of being "called" something aren't as great as actually dealing with discrimination day-to-day. I know it doesn't affect me in the least.

My point is, there are plenty of white people who act and react based on deep-seated prejudices -- but most of them swear they aren't racist or prejudiced in any way.

That's where self-awareness comes into it -- and as long as they hold the cards, they will have some advantage -- or "white privilege."

EDIT -- I'm not arguing with anyone about why labeling white people "the most violent and oppressive force on earth" is absurd and harmful. Just addressing the idea that "white privilege" doesn't exist.

But as it is now, white people still have the power to oppress and discriminate -- although the backlash or even an overreaction to that could affect them adversely.

So for now, the consequence of being "called" something aren't as great as actually dealing with discrimination day-to-day. I know it doesn't affect me in the least.

My point is, there are plenty of white people who act and react based on deep-seated prejudices -- but most of them swear they aren't racist or prejudiced in any way.

That's where self-awareness comes into it -- and as long as they hold the cards, they will have some advantage -- or "white privilege."

EDIT -- I'm not arguing with anyone about why labeling white people "the most violent and oppressive force on earth" is absurd and harmful. Just addressing the idea that "white privilege" doesn't exist.

It's so complicated though, way more so than proponents of white privilege ever tend to admit. Everyone has the power to discriminate and does.

For example, I have absolutely been called a coon, coconut, uncle tom, by black people, way more times than I've ever been called nigger. And always for holding the opinions displayed in this thread.

As for oppression. It's difficult for me to see it as a white power thing, it's more, or at least as much a power power thing, it just so happens that whites might hold more positions of power. But that doesn't mean that should that not be the case in the future, that oppression somehow disappears.

We decry state violence. The state beats us up, sends us to war, locks us up. And we say it enacts this kind of violence disproportionately against minorities.

But firstly the state isn't a white entity. Plenty of police, military, prison staff etc etc including a recent president are non-whites. I mean we can't say the police are white oppressors if 25% of them are non-white.

So white oppression (however that is defined) and state oppression are not the same thing. I don't see the state targeting any particular race as much as I see it holding onto power and authority by whatever means which involves oppressing any group which may be a threat. You look at COINTELPRO and yes they were after the Panthers, but they were also after Worker's Unions.

So what of disproportionate incarceration? Difficult. But again it's a statist thing. Most minorities are locked up for drug related offences. Poor people are disproportionately engaged in drug related activities, minorities are disproportionately poor. I think drug laws are counter-productive, but are they racist, or favourable to whites somehow?

I don't ever really hear stuff like Hispanics are violent because of fascism in central and South America, or Arabs are oppressive because of totalitarianism in the Middle East... only that fascist governments are violent. So when I iron these types of things out the fault lines in my mind usually come down to class and state power.

__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

I don't know about where you live -- but in general, caucasians in the U.S. don't have to deal with the day-to-day consequences of racism -- when it comes to hiring, housing, dealing with the police or even trying to hail a cab...

I tend to think people get discriminated against more often for reasons other than the colour of their skin. If a taxi driver has the pick of a well-dressed/groomed African-American or a grubby looking caucasian, guess who he’s going to take? The same goes with housing: if a realtor could lease a house to a Mexican with a high-paying job who has good references, looks clean and is polite, or a caucasian on welfare with terrible references who looks dirty and stinks of pot and alcohol, guess who they’re going to lease to? And so on.

It’s almost always more a question of socio-economic stratum and level of self-care/education that leads to discrimination rather than race. The reason some think there is so-called white privilege is because a greater number of, say, Mexican Americans are living at the poverty line than whites. That doesn’t mean whites are privileged, it means that wealth is privileged.

If the tables were turned and African Americans had, on average, more wealth than Caucasians, Africans would be the ones with the privilege. The test as to whether white privilege exists is this: shift the race and see what changes, then switch the socio-economic position and see what changes.

If you take a wealthy white man, with so-called white privilege, and change the colour of his skin to black I don't think anything would change for him. But if you change his wealth and social status instead of skin colour it's another story altogether.

It's so complicated though, way more so than proponents of white privilege ever tend to admit. Everyone has the power to discriminate and does.

You can make it as complicated as you want to -- and you probably will.

I'll go way out on a limb and guess that most people are concerned about how racism affects them in their daily lives.

A few years ago when I was starting my business, I needed all the work I could get -- so I contracted with a printer to work in his design department. Pretty low-end work, but I was happy to do it.

It got busy to the point where I asked the owner if I could bring someone on to help for a few days -- and since I'd already made it clear that I wouldn't be staying, I said it would be good opportunity to check someone out to take my place.

By this time he trusted me and told me hire someone. So I brought in a friend I knew from school who is black.

So the owner pulled me aside and said, this is OK for now, but he was concerned about the guy dealing with customers. Not that HE was prejudiced, mind you. I think he probably really believed he wasn't. Of course, so much for my friend being considered for a job. (And this isn't about being "called" anything.)

Whereas not many people would be careless enough to voice their concerns -- especially from a legal standpoint -- I seriously doubt that this kind of thing doesn't happen with some regularity in varying degrees. I grew up surrounded by people with this kind of mindset and I believe it's alive and well, even if it's mostly bubbling under the surface.

From that standpoint I agree with this one part of Bergdorf's statement. (Although I believe it's learned as well.)

Come see me when you realise that racism isn’t learned, it’s inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege.

Did she specifically mention the "state" as an oppressive entity? If so, I missed it.

You can nitpick the definition of "privilege" -- but to me it simply means having an inherent advantage. And for now anyway, I think white people do, for the most part.

I tend to think people get discriminated against more often for reasons other than the colour of their skin. If a taxi driver has the pick of a well-dressed/groomed African-American or a grubby looking caucasian, guess who heís going to take? The same goes with housing: if a realtor could lease a house to a Mexican with a high-paying job who has good references, looks clean and is polite, or a caucasian on welfare with terrible references who looks dirty and stinks of pot and alcohol, guess who theyíre going to lease to? And so on.

Itís almost always more a question of socio-economic stratum and level of self-care/education that leads to discrimination rather than race. The reason some think there is so-called white privilege is because a greater number of, say, Mexican Americans are living at the poverty line than whites. That doesnít mean whites are privileged, it means that wealth is privileged.

If the tables were turned and African Americans had, on average, more wealth than Caucasians, Africans would be the ones with the privilege. The test as to whether white privilege exists is this: shift the race and see what changes, then switch the socio-economic position and see what changes.

If you take a poor African and compare him to a wealthy white and determine that there is white privilege, change the colour of their skin and I bet nothing changes - everyone still treats the wealthy, well-educated person the same, just as they do for the poor person even though their colours have been altered. But if you switch the wealth and social status instead of skin colour it's another story altogether.

And I'm saying all other things being equal (more or less) -- which they no doubt are in many circumstances. For instance, two well-dressed/groomed guys -- one black, one white etc. etc.

It depends. Say the one choosing between the two well dressed guys is black. Is it "black privilege" if the black guy gets chosen over the white? Racism exists. I'm not denying that. I'm denying that there is some magical advantage to being white.

The two people you mentioned - well dressed/groomed - would more often than not get pretty much the same treatment in my opinion, just as a white and a black in shabby clothes would get pretty much the same kind of mistreatment.

Did she specifically mention the "state" as an oppressive entity? If so, I missed it.

You can nitpick the definition of "privilege" -- but to me it simply means having an inherent advantage. And for now anyway, I think white people do, for the most part.

Oh no.. I'm saying that the state is oppressive, and that she confuses state oppression and violence with white oppression. We've heard it in this thread... The white man will drone you if you don't comply. And white violence, outside of state sponsored violence could hardly be thought of as the most destructive in the world. In fact outside of state violence it's less than most other races. Imperialism and disproportionate incarceration are absolutely two of the main accusations against white people and proofs put forward of a racist system.

Even economically a study was done recently which showed Asians earning more per capita than whites in the US. So whether I'm over-complicating things I don't know but it can't be as simple people often present.

__________________
I don't want any gay people hanging around me while I'm trying to kill kids.

When those white people act on their prejudices, there are real-word negative consequences for black people.

There are a lot more white people than black people.

Advantage: White people.

I think we're basically in agreement, but I'm saying white privilege is really economic/social privilege, just applied to whoever happens to have that privilege, in this case whites.

When the Mongols controlled a sixth of the world's land Mass the Khan's had enormous power and wealth, and the Mongol people had advantages over those of conquered nations. Was there Mongol privilege? Or does it make more sense to name what's at the root of the issue rather than name it according to whom the issue momentarily applies?

It is, and has always been, an issue of power: command of resources (social/economic/natural/military/etc). It's wealth, to apply the term in a broad sense, and it makes more sense to say resource privilege than white privilege.

Oh no.. I'm saying that the state is oppressive, and that she confuses state oppression and violence with white oppression. We've heard it in this thread... The white man will drone you if you don't comply. And white violence, outside of state sponsored violence could hardly be thought of as the most destructive in the world. In fact outside of state violence it's less than most other races. Imperialism and disproportionate incarceration are absolutely two of the main accusations against white people and proofs put forward of a racist system.

OK -- now I see what you're saying.

But aside from the hyperbole and confusion on her part, I think she's right about one thing -- and I'll qualify that again by saying it's prevalent in the U.S. -- and that's how so many Americans can't or won't acknowledge that racism is still an issue -- and that presently, white people still have an advantage.

And I would contend that a great deal of it comes from a lack of self-awareness -- and I'll add empathy to that.

Maybe Morgan Freeman is right -- just stop talking about it. But it seems to me that white people just need to admit there is still deep-seated prejudice as a starting point to moving on.

Don't pretend it doesn't exist or that it's all on black people to "just get over it" -- which is something you hear a whole lot now in the Trump era.

Originally Posted by JohnConstantine

Even economically a study was done recently which showed Asians earning more per capita than whites in the US. So whether I'm over-complicating things I don't know but it can't be as simple people often present.

What can complicate it is different groups of people have had a unique experience and more or less historical baggage to carry and overcome...

I think we're basically in agreement, but I'm saying white privilege is really economic/social privilege, just applied to whoever happens to have that privilege, in this case whites.

When the Mongols controlled a sixth of the world's land Mass the Khan's had enormous power and wealth, and the Mongol people had advantages over those of conquered nations. Was there Mongol privilege? Or does it make more sense to name what's at the root of the issue rather than name it according to whom the issue momentarily applies?

It is, and has always been, an issue of power: command of resources (social/economic/natural/military/etc). It's wealth, to apply the term in a broad sense, and it makes more sense to say resource privilege than white privilege.

Yes -- I understand the economic component and we do agree to a point.

I'm not an expert in psychology or sociology -- but I contend that there is something visceral about racism based on skin color that goes deeper than economics -- because of hundreds of years of negative associations. That doesn't apply everywhere of course -- but it certainly does in the U.S.

If we were all on the same economic footing, maybe that would dissipate with time -- but I don't think it's very helpful to dismiss it as being all about economic/social privilege at this point. (And of course, there is a chicken and egg component to all of this.)

So maybe Bergdorf is shooting at the wrong target, but there is some justification for resentment that has do with denial on the part of a whole lot of white people.

Yes -- I understand the economic component and we do agree to a point.

I'm not an expert in psychology or sociology -- but I contend that there is something visceral about racism based on skin color that goes deeper than economics -- because of hundreds of years of negative associations. That doesn't apply everywhere of course -- but it certainly does in the U.S.

If we were all on the same economic footing, maybe that would dissipate with time -- but I don't think it's very helpful to dismiss it as being all about economic/social privilege at this point. (And of course, there is a chicken and egg component to all of this.)

So maybe Bergdorf is shooting at the wrong target, but there is some justification for resentment that has do with denial on the part of a whole lot of white people.

As I said already, Iím not saying racism isnít something real. Iím saying the idea that whites have some privilege beyond what is conferred by greater control of resources is misplaced.

The term ďwhite privilegeĒ implies that the advantages whites have are based on their being white, but they arenít. Take away the power whites have and the privilege disappears. Therefore itís not ďwhiteĒ privilege so much as itís power-privilege, and itís everywhere in the world, not just in caucasian countries, and not just in the hands of whites.

The underlying mechanism of racism is ultimately a phenomenon honed by evolution, and itís innate to every higher-order organism on the planet. We all have a predisposition toward partiality with regard to those closest to us. Itís part of a hierarchy of preferentiality that starts with your family, friends, colleagues, neighbours, and goes on to those from your suburb, city, state, country, continent, race, planet, solar system, galaxyÖ

The reason evolution selects for the mechanism underlying racism is simple: take two races of monkeys: A and B. Race A is indiscriminate, and race B discriminates. Since race A doesnít treat its own race preferentially, they give the benefit of their efforts to their own race as well as race B indiscriminately. Race B only gives the benefit of their efforts to their own race. Obviously race B has an advantage, and their race will come to dominate the gene pool because they get more resources with less effort.

The same thing happens at the level of families: during human evolution those who gave special attention to their own offspring, for example, had an advantage over those who spread their efforts indiscriminately between every offspring they encountered. Thatís all racism comes down to: the same in-group mentality that exists in a family re-applied at the level of race.

Youíll usually find that a person with unusually strong family ties is more likely to be: a strong supporter of some particular sporting club (if theyíre into sports), unusually nationalistic, more racistÖ The underlying in-group mechanism is strong, and only needs re-applying to whatever social stratum is currently in mind.

So racism exists, but itís universal. Every race is, on average, a little racist. It doesnít determine who does and doesnít have privilege though. Power alone does that. I think in the years to come, as western power shifts to the east, weíll come to realise that in a profound way.

Racism is discrimination, but in order to discriminate with any kind of leverage you need power. Power and racism are in no way synonymous though. You can have power and not be racially discriminative, for instance, but you canít have power and not be privileged, which is why I donít think mixing race in with privilege (in terms like white privilege) is all that reasonable or reflective of the thing we're trying to name. Race/racism and privilege/power are distinct things that don't always go hand in hand.

But one of the reasons that white people still hold the power and economic cards is because of racism -- both historical, institutional racism and some of the more subtle kinds of racism we've mentioned.

It's fun to talk about Mongols and evolution, but as it stands today, race and power are indelibly linked.

You can call it something else, or leave off the "white" if you want to -- but it is still white privilege.

When powerful people in China exert power over others is that "yellow privilege"?

I don't see how race and privilege are "indelibly linked" when throughout history countless many different races have held the balance of power in their region and therefore had privilege.

If the Chinese had sailed to Africa a few centuries ago, brought back boatloads of black people and made them slaves and they where still dealing with the repercussions of that today -- then yes, "yellow privilege" would be applicable in that context.

And I'm not talking about "throughout history."

That's specifically why I said, "as it stands today." Indelibly doesn't necessarily imply throughout all time -- but that's the current state of affairs.

I think you are being 100% sincere, but outside a conversation like this, or one I might have with a friend, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to not just call it what it is -- white privilege.

But one of the reasons that white people still hold the power and economic cards is because of racism -- both historical, institutional racism and some of the more subtle kinds of racism we've mentioned.

Can you give me examples of how race, not power, is the reason white people still hold power?

You can call it something else, or leave off the "white" if you want to -- but it is still white privilege.

If anyone who has power has privilege, and there are more people belonging to races other than whites with power than there are whites with power (worldwide), why call it white privilege? It's just privilege. I don't think race has much to do with it.

Can you give me examples of how race, not power, is the reason white people still hold power?

It's not an either/or proposition. It's circular.

See my example above. The man who owned the printing plant had the power. He wouldn't hire the guy because he was black. This would represent a perpetuation of power and conditions that lead to it -- and it's all about race.

Or suppose you had trouble renting an apartment in an area with better schools. The landlord holds the power -- your children are put at a disadvantage purely because of race.

Or suppose that black guy who needed a cab missed an important interview.

Originally Posted by eripiomundus

If anyone who has power has privilege, and there are more people belonging to races other than whites with power than there are whites with power (worldwide), why call it white privilege? It's just privilege. I don't think race has much to do with it.

I'm betting the person who is dealing with the effects of discrimination doesn't really care about what's going on worldwide -- not right when he's thinking that he didn't get the job, the apartment, the promotion, the cab etc. because he is black. To him, it's certainly about race.